Claudia MF Lane Strikes Again

Umm yes... wrote:

[quote]FL days numbered wrote:

Yes - if I were a stud, I'd much rather be known as a Nike champ than a Footlocker champ. My runners (I'm a coach) have never heard of "Kinney" shoes, and so I can easily imagine that 20 years from now kids will have never really heard of "Footlocker." However, I suspect Nike will still be in business.

Not me if we r talking 2017. Footlocker for me is still the tougher national championship. It has more clout than saying NXN champ

glk wrote:

Last year's Letsrun.com poll proved that Foot Locker is king.

NXN is for those that can't quality for Foot Locker.

Foot Locker is proven. NXN is pure NIKE schools.

Thank you for pointing this out.

Umm yes... wrote:

if I were a stud, I'd much rather be known as a Nike champ than a Footlocker champ. My runners (I'm a coach) have never heard of "Kinney" shoes, and so I can easily imagine that 20 years from now kids will have never really heard of "Footlocker." However, I suspect Nike will still be in business.

This abuse is a major problem with the Nike events, coaches forcing and belittling the young people they're supposed to be helping.

To put into comparison for those who follow speed ratings (which are pretty accurate for comparison) Lane’s best speed rating this season was 166 at Mt. Sac (correct me if I’m wrong), and Tuohy’s was 172 at NY Federation. A 6 speed rating difference equates to 18 seconds, so by comparing those, it really isn’t that close (unless you consider 18sec in a 5k close, I don’t). Again, not a perfect system but it’s been proven to be very accurate throughout the years. Would be a very good and interesting race to see them go head to head, shame they won’t be

Tullyrunners wrote:

To put into comparison for those who follow speed ratings (which are pretty accurate for comparison) Lane’s best speed rating this season was 166 at Mt. Sac (correct me if I’m wrong), and Tuohy’s was 172 at NY Federation. A 6 speed rating difference equates to 18 seconds, so by comparing those, it really isn’t that close (unless you consider 18sec in a 5k close, I don’t). Again, not a perfect system but it’s been proven to be very accurate throughout the years. Would be a very good and interesting race to see them go head to head, shame they won’t be

Don't NY runners typically get higher speed ratings than runners from the rest of the country? (at least from what I've read on here)

Lane ran 27 seconds faster than Amber Trotter's best time at Mt. SAC; Trotter's 16:16 that day was considered one of the greatest races ever run by a HS girl to that point. Lane has run 15:49.

If I recall correctly, Amber Trotter has the highest speed rating of any girl at 180 at Footlocker, a few weeks later.

So how does a girl who ran 27 seconds faster have a speed rating of 166? Seems a bit low.

whatthewhatthewhat wrote:

Don't NY runners typically get higher speed ratings than runners from the rest of the country? (at least from what I've read on here)

Yes of course, which is the purpose of the ratings.

Tullyrunners wrote:

Yes of course, which is the purpose of the ratings.

im guessing he meant in comparison to how they should b graded

I wouldn’t agree that NY gets high speed ratings, I mean maybe to a certain extent but they are usually fairly accurate when he predicts races like nationals with the exception of teams who end up bombing or running well.

A note on the Trotter thing: from my understanding (which I think is pretty good), speed ratings are a runner to runner comparison, not a runner to course comparison (for the most part, obviously someone who has a run a high speed rating on a course in previous years gets taken into account). Meaning it’s based off the top runner, not a course record or previous performances (again, for the most part). Trotter was remarkable, but speed ratings were fairly inflated back then, and have since gone down.

What you're describing is how the ratings supposedly work, but this is clearly not the case, otherwise the ratings from the CA state meet would not have been identical this year and last year for the same given time no matter what race someone was in. 16:30 for a midpack boy last year was 163. 16:30 for Claudia Lane this year was 16:30. Last year it was cold enough to warrant Lane running in tights. This year was it about 80 degrees. Yet the ratings are identical. Can you explain that?

Tullyrunners wrote:

I wouldn’t agree that NY gets high speed ratings, I mean maybe to a certain extent but they are usually fairly accurate when he predicts races like nationals with the exception of teams who end up bombing or running well.

A note on the Trotter thing: from my understanding (which I think is pretty good), speed ratings are a runner to runner comparison, not a runner to course comparison (for the most part, obviously someone who has a run a high speed rating on a course in previous years gets taken into account). Meaning it’s based off the top runner, not a course record or previous performances (again, for the most part). Trotter was remarkable, but speed ratings were fairly inflated back then, and have since gone down.

Tullyrunners wrote:

I wouldn’t agree that NY gets high speed ratings, I mean maybe to a certain extent but they are usually fairly accurate when he predicts races like nationals with the exception of teams who end up bombing or running well.

A note on the Trotter thing: from my understanding (which I think is pretty good), speed ratings are a runner to runner comparison, not a runner to course comparison (for the most part, obviously someone who has a run a high speed rating on a course in previous years gets taken into account). Meaning it’s based off the top runner, not a course record or previous performances (again, for the most part). Trotter was remarkable, but speed ratings were fairly inflated back then, and have since gone down.

New York does not get higher speed ratings than other States ... I get numerous complaints from within NY saying exactly the opposite.

Speed ratings are never based off the top runner ... the top elite runners are typically ignored when deriving speed ratings.

Speed ratings were not inflated years back ... Top speed ratings generally came from Foot Locker Nationals ... NXN has divided the quality runners and that has hurt the competition at FLN resulting in generally lower speed ratings because the runners simply are not running as fast on a relative basis.

Thankfully myself and a few others respect the true awesome performance of Amber Trotter at FLN ... and that includes the TV announcers from FOX Sports TV which broadcast the event.

Katelyn Tuohy and Claudia Lane are in the "Top Elite" category of all-time ... And the wonderful world of HS cross country can't find a way to have them race head-to-head in XC because of corporate crap, jealousy and power-grabs ... I'm starting not to care anymore!

ding ding dong wrote:

What you're describing is how the ratings supposedly work, but this is clearly not the case, otherwise the ratings from the CA state meet would not have been identical this year and last year for the same given time no matter what race someone was in. 16:30 for a midpack boy last year was 163. 16:30 for Claudia Lane this year was 16:30. Last year it was cold enough to warrant Lane running in tights. This year was it about 80 degrees. Yet the ratings are identical. Can you explain that?

Speed ratings measure how fast runners run relative to each other as a group (based on prior races during the current season and prior years) and as individuals based on speed ratings during the current season.

Final times relative to each other are the determining factor ... temperature, race conditions, etc. do NOT matter ... ONLY final times relative to each other ..... By how much did Claudia Lane beat other runners of known ability BOTH collectively and as individuals?? ... Yes, conditions can vary over the course of a day and effect the final times, but I only compensate-adjust when absolutely necessary, and most coaches think it has a much larger effect than it really does.

You can't believe the complaints I get from NY people alone ... "It was much muddier during our race than theirs, how come the speed ratings are the same??" ... "Last year the same time got a 180 rating and this year only a 177, what's wrong with you Meylan?" ... I'm tired of the complaining and moaning about speed ratings, especially from the half dozen emails recently received from CA coaches ... I get demands for explanations all the time ... It's time for me stop everything at the end of this season ... Most people really can't understand the concept because it's foreign to track.

Maybe we get the Tuohy/Lane matchup next year. I asked Coach Diglio about taking Tuohy to FL and this is what he said "She wants to try and win NXN and then go to FL the next two years if possible."

Spoke with Tuohy's coach wrote:

Maybe we get the Tuohy/Lane matchup next year. I asked Coach Diglio about taking Tuohy to FL and this is what he said "She wants to try and win NXN and then go to FL the next two years if possible."

Sounds like a good coach to say that.

Amber Trotter gets a 180 for her 16:24 at FLN Orlando 2001

Julie Allen gets a 151 for her 17:50 at FLN Orlando 2001

A few weeks earlier at the 2001 CA state meet Trotter ran 17:01, which would be a 153 rating based on the last few years at the CA state meet having 17:01 being a 153 speed rating both years (2016 and 2017, with many other years very close to this.)

Julie Allen ran 18:29 at the 2001 CA state meet, which should be a speed rating of 123 based on the past two years.

So on November 24th Julie Allen gets a speed rating of 123 and is 1:28 behind Amber Trotter who ought to have a speed rating there of 153.

Two weeks later on December 8th Julie Allen is 1:26 behind Amber Trotter. Suddenly Julie Allen's speed rating inflates by 28 points, going from 123 to 151! Amber Trotter's inflates by 27 points, from 153 to 180!

Now, what is more likely here? The speed ratings are off by a large margin? Or both of these girls improved an identical amount?

Yes, Amber Trotter was fast for unfortunate reasons, but there is simply no way both her and Julie Allen miraculously increased their fitness the equivalent of 80-90 seconds.

Julie Allen had a lifetime PR in the 3200 of 10:39.

Admit it Bill, you're way off.

LegendaryLane wrote:

Also US #1 5k time for girls this year I believe.

Thanks, this means virtually nothing.

running commenter wrote:

LegendaryLane wrote:

Also US #1 5k time for girls this year I believe.

Thanks, this means virtually nothing.

People don't say "cross country times don't matter" for no reason dumba$$es

Looks like Lane is planning on Edinburgh, so now that ball is in Tuo's court.

Idisagree wrote:

In 2015 kelati was the better runner, proving that at ncaa's last week.

How does what you do in college boost your HS credentials?

Kelati has just improved and exceeded what she did in HS, that's it